I'm running a DNA aligner which can utilized multiple threads. Currently doing 16 on a computer cluster. Anecdotally I feel like increasing the amount of threads or even ram space has a diminishing return. Does my benchmark below proof this point? since CPU time < System Time by a wide margin. In other words does this mean that the limiting factor is some other issue like storage so that utilizing more threads will not help at this point? My goal is to reduce total running time.
thank you.
User Time = 1:06:03:35
System Time = 04:35:24
Wallclock Time = 08:24:50
CPU = 1:10:38:59
Related
I have quad core ubuntu system. say If I see the load average as 60 in last 15 mins during peak time. Load average goes to 150 as well.
This loads happens generally only during peak time. Basically I want to know if there is any standard formula to derive the number of cores ideally required to handle the given load ?
Objective :-
If consider the load as 60 then it means 60 task were in queue on an average at any point of time in last 15 mins ? Adding cpu can help me to server the
request faster or save system from hang or crashing .
Linux load average (as printed by uptime or top) includes tasks in I/O wait, so it can have very little to do with CPU time that could potentially be used in parallel.
If all the tasks were purely CPU bound, then yes 150 sustained load average would mean that potentially 150 cores could be useful. (But if it's not sustained, then it might just be a temporary long queue that wouldn't get that long if you had better CPU throughput.)
If you're getting crashes, that's a huge problem that isn't explainable by high loads. (Unless it's from the out-of-memory killer kicking in.)
It might help to use vmstat or dstat to see how much CPU time is spent in user/kernel space when your load avg. is building up, or if it's probably mostly I/O.
Or of course you probably know what tasks are running on your machine, and whether one single task is I/O bound or CPU bound on an otherwise-idle machine. I/O throughput usually scales a bit positively with queue depth, except on magnetic hard drives when that turns sequential read/write into seek-heavy workloads.
After reading a lot of definitions regarding global work size and local work size I still don't really understand what they are and how they work.
I think that global work size determine how many times kernel function will be called, but local work size?
I thought that local work size determine how many threads are gonna be used in the same time in parallel, but am I really correct?
Is local size a number of threads executing one kernel program per one global size value? I mean when we have global size = 1 and local size = 1, then kernel function will be called one time and only one thread will be working on it.
But when we have Global Size = 4096 and local size (if allowed that high) is 1024 then we have 4096 calls of kernel function and each call have 1024 threads working on it at the same time? Am I correct?
Here is some example code i found:
and my another question is: how local size change influence that code?
As i see it is clearly working on global_id's, no local one's so is local size change to bigger one than lets say 1 will influence time spent executing that algorithm?
And when we would have for loop in that algorithm, is it changing anything then regarding local size influence? Do we need to use local_id's to see any difference when changing local size?
I tested that on few of my programs, and even when I used only global_id's changing local work size gave me significantly shorter executing times.
So how does it work? I don't get it.
Thank you in advance!
I thought that local work size determine how many threads are gonna be
used in the same time in parallel, but am I really correct?
Correct but it is per compute unit, not whole device. If there are more compute units than local thread groups, then device is not fully used. When there are more thread groups than compute units but not exact multiple, some compute units wait for other at the end. When both values equal(or exact multiple), then "how many times" is important to fully occupy all ALUS.
For example a 8-core cpu could define 8 compute units(maybe +8 more with hardware multithreads). But a GPU with similar price can have 20 to 64 compute units. Then, even within a single compute unit, many groups of threads can be "in-flight" which is not explicitly tuned but changed by resource usage per thread and per compute unit and maybe per gpu.
how local size change influence that code? As i see it is clearly
working on global_id's, no local one's so is local size change to
bigger one than lets say 1 will influence time spent executing that
algorithm?
Vectorizable/parallelizable kernel codes could have advantage of distributing threads to ALUs, SIMDs of a core or wider SIMDs of a gpu compute unit. For a CPU, 8 scalar instructions could be issued at the same time. For a GPU, it could be as large as thousands. So when you decrease local size to 1, you limit width of parallel thread issue to 1 ALU which cripples performance for many architectures. When you make local size too big, resource per thread falls and performance takes a hit. If you don't have any idea, opencl api can tune local size for you if you give a null to its parameter.
And when we would have for loop in that algorithm, is it changing
anything then regarding local size influence? Do we need to use
local_id's to see any difference when changing local size?
For old and static scheduling architectures, loop unrolling is advised with a unroll step size equal to width of basic SIMD width. No, local id is just a query of a threads id in its compute unit so no need to query if you don't need it.
I tested that on few of my programs, and even when I used only
global_id's changing local work size gave me significantly shorter
executing times. So how does it work?
If kernel needs insane resources, you could think of 1 thread per local group. If kernel doesn't need any resource except immediate values, you should make it maximum local value. Resource allocation per thread(because of kernel codes) is important. New architectures have load balancing so it may not matter in future if you let api choose the optimum value.
To keep all ALUs busy, scheduler issues many threads per core, when one thread is waiting for memory operation, another thread can do ALU operation at the same time. This is good when resource usage is small. When you use %50 of all resources of a compute unit, it can have only 2 threads in flight. Threads share sharable resources such as L1 cache,local memory,register file.
Codes such as c[i]=a[i]+b[i] for scalar floats, are vectorizable. You can have better performance using float8,float16 and similar structs if compiler is not already doing it in background. This way it needs less threads to accomplish all work and also accesses to memory is faster. You can also add a loop in kernel to decrase number of threads even more, which is good for CPU since less thread dispatching is needed between 2 data blocks. For GPU, it may not matter.
Trivial example for a CPU:
4 core, local size = 10, global size = 100
core 1 and 2 have 3 thread groups each. Core 3 and 4 have only 2 thread groups.
1: 30 threads --> fully performant
2: 30 threads
3: 20 threads --> less performant, better preemption for other jobs
4: 20 threads
while instruction pipelining doesn't have much bubbles for cores 1 and 2, bubbles start after some time for cores 3 and 4 so they can be used for other jobs such as a second kernel running in parallel or operating system or some array copying. When you use all cores equally such as for 120 threads, then they finish more work per second but CPU cannot do array copies if kernels already using memory.(unless OS does preemption for other threads)
For my research I need a CPU benchmark to do some experiments on my Ubuntu laptop (Ubuntu 15.10, Memory 7.7 GiB, Intel Core i7-4500U CPU # 1.80HGz x 4, 64bit). In an ideal world, I would like to have a benchmark satisfying the following:
The CPU should be an official benchmark rather than created by my own for transparency purposes.
The time needed to execute the benchmark on my laptop should be at least 5 minutes (the more the better).
The benchmark should result in different levels of CPU throughout execution. For example, I don't want a benchmark which permanently keeps the CPU utilization level at around 100% - so I want a benchmark which will make the CPU utilization vary over time.
Especially points 2 and 3 are really key for my research. However, I couldn't find any suitable benchmarks so far. Benchmarks I found so far include: sysbench, CPU Fibonacci, CPU Blowfish, CPU Cryptofish, CPU N-Queens. However, all of them just need a couple of seconds to complete and the utilization level on my laptop is at 100% constantly.
Question: Does anyone know about a suitable benchmark for me? I am also happy to hear any other comments/questions you have. Thank you!
To choose a benchmark, you need to know exactly what you're trying to measure. Your question doesn't include that, so there's not much anyone can tell you without taking a wild guess.
If you're trying to measure how well Turbo clock speed works to make a power-limited CPU like your laptop run faster for bursty workloads (e.g. to compare Haswell against Skylake's new and improved power management), you could just run something trivial that's 1 second on, 2 seconds off, and count how many loop iterations it manages.
The duty cycle and cycle length should be benchmark parameters, so you can make plots. e.g. with very fast on/off cycles, Skylake's faster-reacting Turbo will ramp up faster and drop down to min power faster (leaving more headroom in the bank for the next burst).
The speaker in that talk (the lead architect for power management on Intel CPUs) says that Javascript benchmarks are actually bursty enough for Skylake's power management to give a measurable speedup, unlike most other benchmarks which just peg the CPU at 100% the whole time. So maybe have a look at Javascript benchmarks, if you want to use well-known off-the-shelf benchmarks.
If rolling your own, put a loop-carried dependency chain in the loop, preferably with something that's not too variable in latency across microarchitectures. A long chain of integer adds would work, and Fibonacci is a good way to stop the compiler from optimizing it away. Either pick a fixed iteration count that works well for current CPU speeds, or check the clock every 10M iterations.
Or set a timer that will fire after some time, and have it set a flag that you check inside the loop. (e.g. from a signal handler). Specifically, alarm(2) may be a good choice. Record how many iterations you did in this burst of work.
In its Energy-Efficient Software Guidelines Intel suggests that programs are designed multithreaded for better energy efficiency.
I don't get it. Suppose I have a quad core processor that can switch off unused cores. Suppose my code is perfectly parallelizeable (synchronization overhead is negligible).
If I use only one core I burn one core for one hour, if I use four cores I burn four cores for 15 minutes - the same amount of core-hours either way. Where's the saving?
I suspect it has to do with a non-linear relation between CPU utilization and power consumption. So if you can spread 100% CPU utilization over 4 CPUs each will have 25% utilization - and say 12% consumption.
This is especially true when dynamic CPU scaling is used according to Wikipedia the power drain of a CPU is P = C(V^2)F. When a CPU is running faster it requires higher voltages - and that 'to the power of 2' becomes crucial. Furthermore the voltage will be a function of F (which means F can be solved for V) giving something like P = C(F^2)F. Thus by spreading the load over 4 CPUs (running at 100% capacity at that frequency) you can mitigate the cost for the same work.
We can make F a function of L (load) at 100% of one core (as it would be in your OS), so:
F = 1000 + L/100 * 500 = 1000 + 5L
p = C((1000 + 5L)^2)(1000 + 5L) = C(1000 + 5L)^3
Now that we can relate load (L) to the power consumption we can see the characteristics of the power consumption given everything on one core:
p = C(1000 + 5L)^3
p = 1000000000 + 15000000L + 75000L^2 + 125L^3
Or spread over 4 cores:
p = 4C(1000 + (5/4)L)^3
p = 4000000000 + 15000000L + 18750.4L^2 + 7.5L^3
Notice the factors in front of the L^2 and L^3.
During that one hour, the one core isn't the only thing you keep running.
You burn 4 times energy with 4 cores but you do 4 times more work too! If, as you said, the synchro is negligible and the work is parallelizable, you'll spend 4 times less time.
Using multiple threads can save energy when you have i/o waits. One thread can wait while other threads can perform other computations; instead of having your application idle.
A CPU is one part of a computer. It has fans, a motherboard, hard drives, graphics card, RAM etc, lets call this the BASE. If your doing scientific computing (i.e., a compute cluster) you are powering many computers. If you are powering 100's of BASE's anyway, why not allow those BASES to have multiple physical CPU's on them so those CPU's can share the resources of the BASE, physical and logical.
Now INTEL's marketing blurb probably also depends on the fact that these days, each CPU wafer contains multiple cores. Powering multiple physical CPU's is different to powering a single physical cpu with multiple cores.
So if amount of work done per unit of power is the benchmark in question, then modern CPU's performing highly parallel tasks then yes you get more bang for your buck, compared with the previous generation of processors. As not only can you get more cores / cpu, it is also common to get BASE's which can take multiple CPU's.
One may easily assert that one top-end system can now house the processing power of 8-16 singl-cpu single-core CPU's of the past (assuming that in this hypothetical case, that on the new system and the older generation system, each core has the same processing power ).
If a program is multithreaded that doesn't mean that it would use more cores. It just means that more tasks are dealt with in the same time so the overall processor time is shorter.
There are 3 reasons, two of which have already been pointed out:
More overall time means that other (non-CPU) components need to run longer, even if the net calculation for the CPU remains the same
More threads mean more things are done at the same time (because stalls are used for something useful), again the overall real time is reduced.
The CPU power consumption for running the same calculations on one core is not the same. Intel CPUs have a built-in clock boosting for single-core usage (I forgot the marketing buzzword for it). A higher clock means dysproportionally more power consumption and dysproportionally more heat, which again requires the fan to spin faster, too.
So in summary, you consume more power with the CPU and more power for cooling the CPU for a longer time, and you run other components for a longer time, too.
As a 4th reason, one could allege (note that this is only an assumption!) that Intel CPUs are hyperthreaded, and since hyperthreaded cores share some resources, running two threads at once is more efficient than running one thread twice as long.
I have c# Console app, Monte Carlo simulation entirely CPU bound, execution time is inversely proportional to the number of dedicated threads/cores available (I keep a 1:1 ratio between cores/threads).
It currently runs daily on:
AMD Opteron 275 # 2.21 GHz (4 core)
The app is multithread using 3 threads, the 4th thread is for another Process Controller app.
It takes 15 hours per day to run.
I need to estimate as best I can how long the same work would take to run on a system configured with the following CPU's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)
2 x X5570
2 x X5540
and compare the cases, I will recode it use the available threads. I want to justify that we need a Server with 2 x x5570 CPUs over the cheaper x5540 (they support 2 cpus on a single motherboard). This should make available 8 cores, 16 threads (that's how the Nehalem chips work I believe) to the operating system. So for my app that's 15 threads to the Monte Carlo Simulation.
Any ideas how to do this? Is there a website I can go and see benchmark data for all 3 CPUS involved for a single threaded benchmark? I can then extrapolate for my case and number of threads. I have access to the current system to install and run a benchmark on if necessary.
Note the business are also dictating the workload for this app over the next 3 months will increase about 20 times and needs to complete in a 24 hour clock.
Any help much appreciated.
Have also posted this here: http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2308 hopefully they can better explain their benchmarking so I can effectively get a score per core which would be much more helpful.
have you considered recreating the algorithm in cuda? It uses current day GPU's to increase calculations like these 10-100 fold. This way you just need to buy a fat videocard
Finding a single-box server which can scale according to the needs you've described is going to be difficult. I would recommend looking at Sun CoolThreads or other high-thread count servers even if their individual clock speeds are lower. http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/overview/performance.jsp
The T5240 supports 128 threads: http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t5240/index.xml
Memory and CPU cache bandwidth may be a limiting factor for you if the datasets are as large as they sound. How much time is spent getting data from disk? Would massively increased RAM sizes and caches help?
You might want to step back and see if there is a different algorithm which can provide the same or similar solutions with fewer calculations.
It sounds like you've spent a lot of time optimizing the the calculation thread, but is every calculation being performed actually important to the final result?
Is there a way to shortcut calculations anywhere?
Is there a way to identify items which have negligible effects on the end result, and skip those calculations?
Can a lower resolution model be used for early iterations with detail added in progressive iterations?
Monte Carlo algorithms I am familiar with are non-deterministic, and run time would be related to the number of samples; is there any way to optimize the sampling model to limit the number of items examined?
Obviously I don't know what problem domain or data set you are processing, but there may be another approach which can yield equivalent results.
tomshardware.com contains a comprehensive list of CPU benchmarks. However... you can't just divide them, you need to find as close to an apples to apples comparison as you can get and you won't quite get it because the mix of instructions on your workload may or may not depend.
I would guess please don't take this as official, you need to have real data for this that you're probably in the 1.5x - 1.75x single threaded speedup if work is cpu bound and not highly vectorized.
You also need to take into account that you are:
1) using C# and the CLR, unless you've taken steps to prevent it GC may kick in and serialize you.
2) the nehalems have hyperthreads so you won't be seeing perfect 16x speedup, more likely you'll see 8x to 12x speedup depending on how optimized your code is. Be optimistic here though (just don't expect 16x).
3) I don't know how much contention you have, getting good scaling on 3 threads != good scaling on 16 threads, there may be dragons here (and usually is).
I would envelope calc this as:
15 hours * 3 threads / 1.5 x = 30 hours of single threaded work time on a nehalem.
30 / 12 = 2.5 hours (best case)
30 / 8 = 3.75 hours (worst case)
implies a parallel run time if there is truly a 20x increase:
2.5 hours * 20 = 50 hours (best case)
3.74 hours * 20 = 75 hours (worst case)
How much have you profiled, can you squeeze 2x out of app? 1 server may be enough, but likely won't be.
And for gosh sakes try out the task parallel library in .Net 4.0 or the .Net 3.5 CTP it's supposed to help with this sort of thing.
-Rick
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that even the dual-socket X5570 will not be able to scale to the workload you envision. You need to distribute your computation across multiple systems. Simple math:
Current Workload
3 cores * 15 real-world-hours = 45 cpu-time-hours
Proposed 20X Workload
45 cpu-time-hours * 20 = 900 cpu-time-hours
900 cpu-time-hours / (20 hours-per-day-per-core) = 45 cores
Thus, you would need the equivalent of 45 2.2GHz Opteron cores to achieve your goal (despite increasing processing time from 15 hours to 20 hours per day), assuming a completely linear scaling of performance. Even if the Nehalem CPUs are 3X faster per-thread you will still be at the outside edge of your performance envelop - with no room to grow. That also assumes that hyper-threading will even work for your application.
The best-case estimates I've seen would put the X5570 at perhaps 2X the performance of your existing Opteron.
Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Server+roundup+Intel+Nehalem+Xeon+versus+AMD+Shanghai+Opteron/article15036.htm
It'd be swinging big hammer, but perhaps it makes sense to look at some heavy-iron 4-way servers. They are expensive, but at least you could get up to 24 physical cores in a single box. If you've exhausted all other means of optimization (including SIMD), then it's something to consider.
I'd also be weary of other bottlenecks such as memory bandwidth. I don't know the performance characteristics of Monte Carlo Simulations, but ramping up one resource might reveal some other bottleneck.